In most social situations, it is the opposite of that.
Or at least, the way most people perceive the Socratic method is the opposite of that.
In the communications books I've read, the emphasis is to ask questions only out of genuine curiosity, and on top of that, find ways to signal it (including with body language). Never ask questions to make a point. Never ask what could be perceived as a leading question. Even if you are genuinely curious, but don't signal it well, chances are high the other party will interpret it as you trying to make a point and will respond poorly.
In sum: Have a conversation. Express your perspective. Ask questions only if you don't understand.
Bad Question: "If that were true, how would it explain Y?"
Instead: "The trouble I'm having with that perspective is that it doesn't seem to square well with Y."
The latter is expressing your perspective, and is seen as a contribution to the conversation. The former isn't.
> In the communications books I've read, the emphasis is to ask questions only out of genuine curiosity
Then these books are presenting a pastel-colored, declawed, decaffeinated version of the Socratic method. This may be useful and sane advice, but Socratic method it is not. Recall that Socrates was an annoying, unkind person known as the "gadfly", who was hated by many people, and who was ultimately condemned to death by his thought-provoking questions. On the dialogues, you'll see that he does not follow at all the childish advice of your "communications books".
> Probably there's some polite way to express your disagreement without saying "actually here's why you're wrong".
And you said "The Socratic method is good for that."
And also:
> This is often deemed as trolling or sealioning when the discussion is unwelcome (which often is), but when people are open-minded it is a respectful way to argue.
And then in your response to me you say
> On the dialogues, you'll see that he does not follow at all the childish advice of your "communications books"
So let's discuss:
You suggest the Socratic method is useful when people are open minded. You then go ahead and assert the books are childish, without even knowing which books I'm referring to. Nor is it even clear what "childish" means - it's essentially a statement void of meaningful content. If you advocate for the Socratic method, claim it is useful primarily when people are open minded, and in this whole discussion you exhibit close-mindedness, how often do you think the method will be useful at large? I have little hope in it, and I lost too many years of my life practicing it. It was only when I experienced failure after failure did I learn that the problem wasn't with others, but with my approach. Instead of conveniently labeling people (e.g. "close minded"), I needed to improve myself.
Fully open minded people are rare. 10% would be a serious overestimate. A lot more are open minded in some areas, but open minded on most things? Extremely rare - even amongst academics. Moreover, it is usually the areas in which they are close minded that need to be discussed and addressed. I would rather search for a method that has a higher chance of working on "close mindedness" because that is the majority of situations. And in my observation, such methods work even on open minded folks.
And this isn't even getting to the issue where the person asked for a "polite" way, and you emphasize that Socrates was anything but.
I was not being very deep here. It is mostly a matter of context.
The Socratic method is widely used in a scientific or technical context, where a person is expected to answer to outlandishly skeptical claims against their proposal. This is considered routine if it is (sometimes implicitly) agreed upon; but to an outsider it may appear to be extremely aggressive and impolite. Mathematics is an extreme case of this, were normal mathematical dialogue often takes this form, with one person trying desperately to find holes in the proof of another. But what is a good taste discussion style between mathematicians cannot be safely applied to "regular" people who will surely react as if you were attacking them in bad faith. This is when the hemlock mob comes to kill you.
Indeed, if you want to get the results Socrates did, by all means, follow his advice. Not all your interlocutors will be able to locate hemlock quickly, though :-)
In most social situations, it is the opposite of that.
Or at least, the way most people perceive the Socratic method is the opposite of that.
In the communications books I've read, the emphasis is to ask questions only out of genuine curiosity, and on top of that, find ways to signal it (including with body language). Never ask questions to make a point. Never ask what could be perceived as a leading question. Even if you are genuinely curious, but don't signal it well, chances are high the other party will interpret it as you trying to make a point and will respond poorly.
In sum: Have a conversation. Express your perspective. Ask questions only if you don't understand.
Bad Question: "If that were true, how would it explain Y?"
Instead: "The trouble I'm having with that perspective is that it doesn't seem to square well with Y."
The latter is expressing your perspective, and is seen as a contribution to the conversation. The former isn't.